Aaronp18 wrote:Didn't the Canucks change their PP philosophy during the San Jose series?

Getting away from the relatively unsuccessful Sedin puck movement down low and instead feeding Sammy on the point for the one-timer. The nooner in SJ was the epitome of this adjustment.

The Canucks even struggled, aside from Kesler, in the Nashville series to score especially on the PP. Even giving up a shorty or two IIRC.

I don't see how Salo's 3 goals and 2 assists in last years playoffs comes anywhere close to equaling an adjustment by AV.

BTW, Two of those goals that AV made the adjustment on came in the same game WITH A TWO MAN ADVANTAGE! Both goals were 5 on 3!

Just sayin.....

You can dismiss the events if you would like but I don't think that's entirely fair. The Canucks made a conscious effort to draw the Sharks down low and feed Salo at the point. They made an adjustment based on what they saw the Sharks doing on the PK.

You just seem to want to blame AV for the lack of adjustments and the negative this team has endured in the past but are unwilling to give him credit when adjustments were definitely made and the team had success with them.

If we had failed on those PP's, especially the 5 on 3's that series could have been far different. And they had been struggling slightly prior to those key Sharks games.

Hey if they got those points from Salo in the finals it may have been a much happier ending.

Aaronp18 wrote:You can dismiss the events if you would like but I don't think that's entirely fair. The Canucks made a conscious effort to draw the Sharks down low and feed Salo at the point. They made an adjustment based on what they saw the Sharks doing on the PK.

You just seem to want to blame AV for the lack of adjustments and the negative this team has endured in the past but are unwilling to give him credit when adjustments were definitely made and the team had success with them.

If we had failed on those PP's, especially the 5 on 3's that series could have been far different. And they had been struggling slightly prior to those key Sharks games.

Hey if they got those points from Salo in the finals it may have been a much happier ending.

So one adjustment made in six years that results in 2 goals totally absolves Vigneault of the complete lack of adjustments made in the SCF and in round 1 against LA. Good to know.

The guy couldn't get the team to take their jobs seriously for 3 months. The result is a fan base that feels ripped off, and players who are swinging golf clubs.

Since Vigneaul took the reigns the Canucks have shown a propensity for making beatable goaltenders look all-world by dumping 30+ shots at the net from the perimeter, getting no second shot chances on back door rebounds (because nobody is there) and grossly inflating the SV% of said goaltender. I won't even bother trying to list the number of times we've had to watch such spectacles during regular season play. The playoffs though.....that's another story. In 2009 it was Khabibulin, in 2010 it was Niemi. Last year it was Crawford (in several games during round 1), then Thomas in the SCF, the guy who had a great regular season and playoffs but was eaten alive by Tampa Bay who figured out that getting him out of position and then moving the puck across or having a guy in place for the far-side rebound paid dividends. This year it was Quick......same story. Quick is a standout in that group, he really is that good, but by the same token, the Canucks never really made him work for his wins and padded his stats nicely. Thomas would be middle of the pack on any team that didn't play box out hockey like the Bruins, he would make incredible saves and have incredible games, but he would get burned way more and win less.

It's not the players making these goaltenders look unbeatable, it's the system they are playing in.

I agree with the AV sentiment but GMMG didn't become a successful lawyer/player agent (who by all reports was a mega tough negotiator to sit across the table from) by not having gonads.

Dudes got balls, for some reason he's not using them in this instance.

Yes he does. Everyone says he should fire Vigneault, but he says, "No, I won't." A wishy washy GM would have gone with the flow and fired him.

And seriously, Vigneault has coached the team to consecutive president's tropies and lead the team to it's best year ever (2010/2011). I think the players simply were burnt out this season, the Bruins also crashed and burned.

Basically, the NHL season is too long. The teams that make it to the SCF dance don't get a chance to heal up and reload the batteries for next season.

Meds wrote:So one adjustment made in six years that results in 2 goals totally absolves Vigneault of the complete lack of adjustments made in the SCF and in round 1 against LA. Good to know.

The guy couldn't get the team to take their jobs seriously for 3 months. The result is a fan base that feels ripped off, and players who are swinging golf clubs.

:rolleyes:

I know you're on the warpath here but one example of an adjustment doesn't mean that the coach made one adjustment. The Canucks also had to adjust to figure out the Kings powerplay in 2010 off the top of my head..

As for the Bruins and Kings series, what adjustments did you think AV should have made? Both opponents controlled the front of their own net extremely well (perhaps the best two teams in the league that I've seen in this respect), have the Canucks had that Dustin Byfuglien type at their disposal and AV has instructed him to circle the perimeter?

I mentioned earlier I think it was a goddamn tragedy for the organization that we had a $4m defenseman in the SCF who could not be used effectively, so there's one thing I think they could have done better. I've also mentioned that I would have been interested to see the Canucks try to freeze the Bruins out with stifling, ultra conservative play so that's another thing I would have liked to see.

However on more than just the level you and others are implying, AV was not playing with a full deck in these series. What is he supposed to do to create offense with two of his best three scorers hurt? If he "loaded up" the first line with his best and healthiest players you're looking at.. Hank/Booth/Burrows in the Kings series, and.. Daniel/..Lapierre? rookie Silent G?/Burrows in the Bruins series. What the fuck is a coach supposed to do to fix the issue staring you in the face when presented with those options? And hell if a team shuts those guys down (as any playoff team should be able to for a stretch) who is left?

Since Vigneaul took the reigns the Canucks have shown a propensity for making beatable goaltenders look all-world by dumping 30+ shots at the net from the perimeter, getting no second shot chances on back door rebounds (because nobody is there) and grossly inflating the SV% of said goaltender. I won't even bother trying to list the number of times we've had to watch such spectacles during regular season play. The playoffs though.....that's another story. In 2009 it was Khabibulin, in 2010 it was Niemi. Last year it was Crawford (in several games during round 1), then Thomas in the SCF, the guy who had a great regular season and playoffs but was eaten alive by Tampa Bay who figured out that getting him out of position and then moving the puck across or having a guy in place for the far-side rebound paid dividends. This year it was Quick......same story. Quick is a standout in that group, he really is that good, but by the same token, the Canucks never really made him work for his wins and padded his stats nicely. Thomas would be middle of the pack on any team that didn't play box out hockey like the Bruins, he would make incredible saves and have incredible games, but he would get burned way more and win less.

It's not the players making these goaltenders look unbeatable, it's the system they are playing in.

I would say that given the rosters, the players playing hurt and so on, the one series that really hangs on AV is the 2009 Blackhawks series.

The others, I don't think you can hold the coach entirely accountable. Like I said earlier, it's not like he's sitting on a player who can control the area in front of the opposing goalie, instead we are looking at guys like Higgins, Hansen, Burrows, Raymond and Sedin trying to win loose pucks from the Willie Mitchells, Matt Greenes, Zdeno Charas and Brent Seabrooks of the world.

The Canucks are just not built to go to war in the middle of the ice and no coach is going to change that. I can totally get on board with the idea that this team needs a new coach, but these reasons just don't add up for me.

Aaronp18 wrote:You can dismiss the events if you would like but I don't think that's entirely fair. The Canucks made a conscious effort to draw the Sharks down low and feed Salo at the point. They made an adjustment based on what they saw the Sharks doing on the PK.

What?!?!, dude!

What team doesn't make a conscious effort to draw their opponent down low and then feed the wide open points on a 5 on 3? Firing from the point will either get you a goal or it'll force the defending team to cheat back opening the down low cross crease pass. Standard shit done by everyone! I'm not saying it's easy... just saying its not an adjustment I'd hang my hat on.

The Canucks affectively utilized the point on the PP all season long. Just over 60% of every point Ehrhoff scored as a member of the Canucks came on the power play. It wasn't some new revelation on AV's part that he and the coaching staff came up with in the middle of the night while breaking down game film. It was no, this is what they're doing and this is could we're going to counter punch moment.

I'm not dismissing events... (At least I don't think I am) I just don't agree blasting away from the point while on a 5 on 3 PP qualifies as an adjustment.

Along with what many would probably consider excuse-making they do point out some interesting adjustments, for example the move to the Torres/Lapierre/Hansen line in the Nashville series, this freed up Ryan Kesler and I think we all agree that he was pretty productive as that series wore on (you might say AV found a way to beat a staunch defensive squad with a legitimately great goaltender, eh Meds? ).

They also point out that Vigneault recovered from a poor game one in the Kings series to even the balance of play (of course, this didn't change the final score most nights) by getting away from the Pahlsson/Kopitar matchup.

(As an aside, Pahlsson was a pretty disappointing acquisition but can you imagine having to match Cody fucking Hodgson against Anze Kopitar? )

AV, when down in the third will mix up his lines often to generate some sort of spark. Hansen, Raymond, Higgins, Lapierrre, Weise, Blitz and Kassian all moved up and down the lineup depending on their play. and role that was required. Hell, he even split the twins for a couple of games this year and moved Burrows back to play with Kesler. Bowness was continuously shifting D partners around.

What you don't see from AV is a strict line matching game (except when he was protecting Cody). Get used to it. When you are a top level team, you have the strength throughout your lineup that others teams need to worry about line match ups not you. Having the luxury of rolling four lines is tribute to both the players and the coaching.

What AV does do, is use his players in situations. Manny with support from Kesler and later Paulson took the defensive zone face offs. Henrik and Kesler got the offensive zone puck drops.

I'm surprised Reefer hasn't been by to bitch about the lack of timeouts AV calls. Not so long ago, our emotionally volatile friend would endlessly complain about AV not keeping set lines together long enough to develop chemistry.

ODB wrote:What team doesn't make a conscious effort to draw their opponent down low and then feed the wide open points on a 5 on 3? Firing from the point will either get you a goal or it'll force the defending team to cheat back opening the down low cross crease pass. Standard shit done by everyone! I'm not saying it's easy... just saying its not an adjustment I'd hang my hat on.

To that point though the Canucks had been working the cross ice pass down low with the Sedin's as their scoring play. The Preds and the Sharks were taking this away.

They made an adjustment. You asked for an example and that's one that came to mind for me. I'm sure there's dozens of others if we really looked into it, there has to be - the Canucks have been an elite team for a few years now. You don't get there by being complacent and not making positive adjustments to your game.

All I'm saying is that it is generally easier to find the flaws, especially when we follow a team this closely. If we were fans of any other franchise we would be able to pick apart several aspects of their game night in and night out.

I think AV coaches quite well and while I would not have been upset if Gillis made a change I don't think the teams failures can be blamed on him.

Meds - geez man where did I say one example absolves AV of anything. I just think there are other issues that caused the Canucks demise than the coach. Injuries are well documented, and the Kings are rolling everyone right now!

“Obviously, Ryan had a shoulder issue and the decision was made at the end of the season to operate on that shoulder,” said Vigneault. “That being said, though, that was not, in our mind, the reason for his diminished production.

“I’m sure if you were to ask him, the injury wasn’t the reason his production fell. His rehab and the way he stayed on top of that permitted him to play at the pace he was used to playing, but for whatever reason his performance slipped this year. We’ve got to get on top of that and we’ve got to get him back to where he was before that.”

What the fuck is so controversial? He actually commends Ryan for being able to keep pace despite the injury. He is not assigning any blame to Kesler for the loss of production.

“Obviously, Ryan had a shoulder issue and the decision was made at the end of the season to operate on that shoulder,” said Vigneault. “That being said, though, that was not, in our mind, the reason for his diminished production.

“I’m sure if you were to ask him, the injury wasn’t the reason his production fell. His rehab and the way he stayed on top of that permitted him to play at the pace he was used to playing, but for whatever reason his performance slipped this year. We’ve got to get on top of that and we’ve got to get him back to where he was before that.”

What the fuck is so controversial? He actually commends Ryan for being able to keep pace despite the injury. He is not assigning any blame to Kesler for the loss of production.

Strangelove wrote:But WHY Alain opens his fat yap about such things to the press I'll never know.

Well I can see it both ways. AV doesn't want to say Kesler can't play well hurt.

I agree he should've chosen his words better. But I don't see any reason for all this "controversy".

No player will admit that their play was affected because of injury, why should the coach use that excuse? Is Kesler (or his agent) going to agree with AV if he said "Well Ryan was hurt, and obviously he couldn't play well because of it." He says that, and the media shits out: "AV CALLS KESLER SOFT".

The Province is laughable these days: "Vignault drops Sedin BOMBSHELL". They expected Daniel to play in game 1. That's a bombshell?